All About PR

I'm watching the second to last episode of Project Runway right now, and I just cannot escape it. Apparently, 6 months out of law school and unemployment hasn't completely atrophied my brain.

For those not in the know, before Fashion Week (i.e. the finale) Tim Gunn visits the designers in their homes to see how their final collections are going. When he visited Irina (my least favorite contestant who is unfortunately the most talented), she announced her intention to use Coney Island t-shirts she had bought. First off, why isn't that against the rules? Second, my immediate thought was that the artwork on the front was copyrighted, possibly even trademarked (I couldn't see it that well). Sure enough, half way through the episode, Tim calls Irina and informs her of this. It's supposed to be a big "OH NOES!" moment, but my legal education left my underwhelmed about the revelation. The entire season has been underwhelming, so I was kind of annoyed that my big "HA!" moment for Irina was spoiled. *sad face*

Anyway, next season needs some changes if they're expecting me to watch again. For one thing, the judges (especially the guest judges) need brains. That would be nice. Also, it would be fabulous if they judged on actual skill instead of who was most popular - *cough*Chris*cough*. And where are my off-the-wall challenges? Make a dress out of things you find in a pet store or something, please.

Yeah, that's all I have to say. Unemployment is unexciting.

Suspension of Belief

There are precious few movies that I have ever walked out of saying, "That was better than the book." When someone is cutting and trimming a book down to the 2 hours of a screenplay, plot elements are lost and characters become that much flatter. (The travesty called "The Golden Compass" anyone?) In general. But there are exceptions. "Jurassic Park" the movie is much better than the book - Michael Crichton doesn't heavily characterize *anyway*, and the story is so much more enjoyable without meandering chapters about the science of it all. Like, I get it - you did research. I, however, would like to read about the next guy to get gutted by a velociraptor. Besides, I liked Ian Malcolm, and I *know* he makes some miraculous recovery in "The Lost World", but how lame was his ending in the meantime?

Anyway, you ask anyone that knows me, and they'll probably know that one of my favorite movies is "The African Queen". Humphrey Bogart in his only Academy Award-winning role and Katherine Hepburn playing someone perfectly suited for her prim independence - what could be better?

So when I was meandering in Half-Price Books the other day and saw the novel by C.S. Forester on which the film was based, I was surprised at myself for never having read it. Something was nagging at me at the back of my mind (which turned about to be my mother's warnings from long ago), but I ignored it and started reading the quite-identical adventures of Charlie (yes, that's where my dog got his name) and Rosie. There are the Germans of WWI and the rapids and the insects and the really painful bit where they almost die in the reeds. Everything!

... Except the ending. For 17 chapters, Charlie and Rosie were the complete and utter focus of the book (save one that showed exactly how they managed to get past the German fort by switching to the German's point of view). Then, Forester decides that's boring - let's throw in some of the British that aren't supposed to be around, according to earlier bits of the book! And let's wrest the entire remainder of the narrative from the two main characters and have a sudden ending where the only thing resolved is the high level of the reader's mystification! What. The. Eff. It wasn't the "that's my favorite movie" part of me that rebelled - it just didn't make any narrative sense. Like Forester got tired at the end and decided he'd just turn *something* into his publisher, like it was a high school English paper.

"I'm so glad we got a better ending than the book, Rosie!"

No wonder the screenwriters changed the end. I'll take "slightly inconceivable" over "dumb ass" for my endings any day, thanks.

If you have a choice, get in front of the TV and watch it. You'll feel better. It's an awesome movie, and it's better than the book. I told the pup after I was done - "You're named after Humphrey Bogart's Academy Award-winning character, not the book's protagonist." I think he appreciated the difference.

Projects

Things I am amusing myself with until I get my bar results and start applying for the myriad of jobs that require state licensing (and are the ones I want the most, so that works out):

1. Staining, stenciling and finishing my dresser.

2. Staring at the mountains of stuff from my younger years that my mother has made me move out of her house. Wondering what I'm going to do with all of it and where it will go.

3. Getting into better shape, before I get a job (thinking optimistically!) and I become a couch potato again.

4. Facebook stalking.

5. Reading all those books I bought over the past 3 years and then never read, because I had to study or (more often) use my free time to sleep.

6. Crossword puzzles.

7. Talking to friends about things other than law school, which is refreshing for all parties.

8. Reminding everyone that bar results aren't due until November, and no, the wait doesn't mean I failed.

9. Dealing with the new house's heating and cooling systems, both of which have decided they hate me.

10. Getting up to let the dog in and out of the backyard every 5 minutes. (Soon to be #11 on the list - putting in a doggie door!)

I Watched Bob Ross Too

PBS stopped airing reruns of "Reading Rainbow" a few days ago. One of the columns I read said that PBS wants to concentrate on programs that educate in a substantive way, instead of just encouraging children to read. Why would kids want to read when they can get all their information straight from the television, right?

I once took a stunningly boring class called "Psychology of Reading". It was mostly about the success of phonetic reading as a opposed to whole-word reading. (Even typing that sentence made me sleepy. I promise I won't explain it further.) But before we got into the intricacies of *that*, the professor decided to tease us for a couple days with the actually interesting question of why some kids love to read and some hate it.

My own parents seemed to consciously plan how much I would grow to love reading - I know that it wasn't so deliberate only because I'm the only child and nothing is deliberate with your first and only child, as my mother now says. My father read stories to me at bedtime when I was little - mostly the nauseating Bernstein Bear series that was so popular back then. He didn't care for them, especially as I had only about 15 of them, and made them more interesting for the both of us by adding his own embellishments. The Bernsteins became more like the Simpsons than a bear family that gave sound moral advice. I remember laughing a lot.

My mother, on the other hand, began reading much more difficult books to me from a very early age. She read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", "Treasure Island" and a number of others to me before I even went into kindergarten. I remember us both crying when Aslan died.

I was lucky to have a series of good teachers. My 3rd grade teacher read "The Witches" by Roald Dahl to us, and I found a favorite author for my childhood. In 5th grade, we were allowed to read whatever book we wanted to - at least 3 per semester. When we moved to Dallas, I was surprised by the idea of being forced to read just one particular book, but I also was made to read what became my favorite novel, "Jane Eyre". I also had to read "The Scarlet Letter" though - a book I still shudder to think about. The NY Times had an article today about the difference between those approaches.

So is it better to have a list of books every child must read? Or should they have the freedom to choose (within limits)? If I had my way, I never would have touched Nathaniel Hawthorne's yawner or "Snow Falling on Cedars". But I probably wouldn't have read "To Kill A Mockingbird" either. Fair trade? Probably - for me, at least. Looking at the books I've been reading lately next to the resumes I haven't sent out, perhaps the whole thing was a bit *too* successful.

Just An Unfun Update

This post was originally long, discussing possible employment prospects and suchlike. I depressed myself writing it. I'll leave you with a brief summary of what I've been up to lately. NYC pictures aren't available yet, since I can't find the cable to hook the camera to the computer. Maybe that post will be more cheerful...

The last couple of months have been full of moving, studying for the bar, taking the bar, and a rather odd, semi-impromptu trip to New York City. The good news is that Charlie loves his new back yard, I think the bar went alright, and I still can find my way around NYC, if my blood sugar hasn't bottomed out and I'm not in Times Square. The bad news is that Jon and I are in Dallas, completely bereft of jobs and, as the school year approaches ever faster, without any prospects for Jon. He's working at Best Buy again, and I'm trying to find anything that will pay me. I really, really don't want the last three years to have been a waste of my time and money.

On A Feminist Kick, Clearly

So I'm watching "Live Free or Die Hard" at the moment, and I have a question for all two of you that read this. Are there ANY female villains out there that aren't the mastermind's girlfriend or after something completely stereotypical, like a man or fur coats made of Dalmatian puppies?

I like Maggie Q (who plays Mai, the main evil chick). I'm all for girls that kick some butt, even the evil ones, but why do these mentally unbalanced women need mentally unbalanced men to lead them through plans of chaos and destruction? Why are they all sidekicks that simply have the added benefit that the villain is probably not going to turn on his love monkey?

I want a female Hans Gruber. I want a villainess who is evil for little more than greed and power. A mastermind that works alone.

Extra points if she doesn't use her sexuality as a weapon!

(I have to say, I adore Kevin Smith in this. I always adore him though.)

I Don't Get It

ALV and I were discussing feminism last night and decided that we're "old school" feminists. You know, the kind of feminists that think women should be able to make their own choices about what they do in life - i.e. be focused on career, be a stay-at-home mom or anything in between. This is opposed to the newer face of feminism - the mindset that if a woman doesn't do all that she can to exceed men in power, wealth and all those other areas where The Man (literally) has excelled in the past, then she is the ultimate failure and a disgrace to anyone with girl parts.

But I think that, in general, most women of any feminist or even anti-feminist group can agree on one thing - we're not meant to bear litters. Don't get in a huff. I don't mean that big families are a bad thing. I mean that having six or eight babies AT ONCE is not biologically sound. Human women are not dogs, cats, ducks or any other species that has multiple births on a regular basis. It's not just unnatural - televisions, forks and my comfy jeans aren't natural, and I wouldn't want to live without any of them - it's dangerous. It's dangerous to the babies, the mom and my sanity.

Unless you've been in a coma, solitary confinement or Tahiti, you've seen the hoopla over "Jon & Kate Plus Eight". I'm going to avoid deep analysis (Jon is a hapless bore and Kate is a neurotic control freak), but I have to wonder why we're rewarding these people for spawning like Scottish Terriers. Scottish Terriers do it all the time! And let's take a quick inventory of the damage their TV show has done to this family - exposed possible affair of Jon, exposed possible affair of Kate, taken Kate out of the house for her promotional book tours, left 8 children to live under constant scrutiny (which has worked so well for many child stars of yore) and earned a look from the government for possible violations of child labor laws. That's just the stuff directly attributable to the show. Then there's that whole "life" category of things that normal people have to deal with.

But, you know what? If these people want to destroy their lives with celebrity, that's fine. From what I've gleaned, Jon & Kate at least seemed able to support a household of 10, even if it would have become tight.

Today, however, I read this headline - "Octuplets' Mom Inks Reality TV, Book Deals".

UGH. The woman has serious issues. And a burden on society. While these deals might remove her from welfare, do you really think she's going to stop? She needs *help*, not affirmation.

Tell me that, along with "Twilight" and gladiator-sytle sandals, these multi-kid, multi-exploitation reality shows will go away.